This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Ping^2 Re: Use gen-libm-test.py to generate ulps table for manual
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 15:06:53 +0000
- Subject: Ping^2 Re: Use gen-libm-test.py to generate ulps table for manual
- References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808092025590.28500@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808211719240.1581@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <mvmbm9dgzd6.fsf@suse.de> <CAKCAbMgo=+vv_cX5edqEHAf-Uo41zzaJZJpPZFwb9MuGcNbZrw@mail.gmail.com> <mvm36upgy4m.fsf@suse.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809041418540.13030@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101240120.27941@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20180910181224.GC8807@altlinux.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809171200160.13789@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809251654040.14070@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:41:45PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > > Dmitry, do you wish to make any comments on the use of Python in building
> > > > glibc?
> > >
> > > My concern with making python a requirement to build glibc is that it will
> > > pull in more packages not required to build glibc. If there is a "minimal"
> > > subset of python that does not bring indirect dependencies to glibc build,
> > > and at the same time is sufficient to build glibc, then adding this subset
> > > of python as a requirement to build glibc shouldn't be a problem.
> > >
> > > I don't know yet whether SUSE or Debian take on the minimal subset pulls
> > > in extra dependencies, I'll check this when time permits.
> >
> > Any conclusions there?
> >
> > I'm not sure it really matters for these purposes what a particular
> > distribution's package pulls in, if they are happy with what works for
> > them for the distribution build or bootstrap. The question for us would
> > be more about what constraints this imposes on distributions in general
> > (e.g. if it means libffi will be needed for a native build of glibc,
> > depending on how far the indirect dependencies on ctypes in the Python
> > standard library go), and whether we are OK with those constraints. The
> > dependencies of the minimal distribution packages are simply useful
> > information for us to help in determining those constraints.
>
> Ping. Any conclusion on this question about indirect dependencies
> introduced by use of Python?
Another ping on this question....
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com